SOUTHWARK S SCHOLS FORUM RESPONSE to NFF Item 5B

Southwark Schools Forum May 2016 Item 5b

SOUTHWARK’s SCHOLS FORUM RESPONSE TO NFF Item 5b

Principles for a reformed funding system

1 Do you agree with our proposed principles for the funding system?

Yes

The structure of the funding system

2 Do you agree with our proposal to move to a school-level national funding formula in 2019-20, removing the requirement for local authorities to set a local formula?

Yes

further comments: Careful consideration must be given to the two year "pilot" of the formula to ensure that the factors used are relevant to the local needs of the young people.

Building block A: per-pupil costs

3 Do you agree that the basic amount of funding for each pupil should be different at primary, key stage 3 and key stage 4?

Yes

further comments: Although, careful consideration should be made to primary as it covers Year R right through to Year 6 which is seven years, schools often put additional resource into Year R to continue the assessment and additional support identified when children join from nursery.

Building block B: additional needs factors

4a Do you agree that we should include a deprivation factor?

Yes

4b Which measures for the deprivation factor do you support?

Pupil- and area-level

further comments: It is acknowledged that the educational needs of young people do not suddenly change when their parent(s)/carers move out of what is an artificial rate of family income. Hence, the use of Ever 6 for other funding streams. The same should apply to this funding factor. The rationale for using the IDACI is accepted but not when it can be out of date by 5 years. This must be revisited to ensure appropriateness, accuracy and reduce turbulence to school funding.

5 Do you agree we should include a low prior attainment factor?

Yes

further comments: As it will be new, care needs to be taken on the use of Reception Baseline Assessment.

6a Do you agree that we should include a factor for English as an additional language?

Yes

6b Do you agree that we should use the EAL3 indicator (pupils registered at any point during the previous 3 years as having English as an additional language)?

Yes

Building block C: school costs

7 Do you agree that we should include a lump sum factor?

Yes

further comments: The Lump sum assists with meeting the high fixed costs of a small school - however that is defined. It varies between LAs because the value of the other factors also varies. Its level often "emerged" as a mechanism for reducing the turbulence of formula change.

It needs national evaluation/modelling to determine appropriate level to ensure that schools can still receive the funding they need.

8 Do you agree that we should include a sparsity factor?

Yes

further comments: Although not relevant to an inner London school - it would appear relevant to a rural area- however, its interaction with the lump sum factor should be modelled.

Building block C: other school costs

9 Do you agree that we should include a business rates factor?

Yes

further comments: It is a fixed cost that the school cannot influence.

10 Do you agree that we should include a split sites factor?

Yes

further comments: Yes - however it requires careful examination of each local authorities' criteria for eligibility to receive such funding - it does not always appear consistent and should be tested to ensure relevance in value.

11 Do you agree that we should include a private finance initiative factor?

Yes

further comments: A cost that cannot be controlled by a school. These costs are draining funds from teaching and learning and consideration should be given to removing them altogether from the DSG.

12 Do you agree that we should include an exceptional premises circumstances factor?

Yes

further comments: If they are truly exceptional, as with PFI.

13 Do you agree that we should allocate funding to local authorities in 2017-18 and 2018-19 based on historic spend for these factors?

Yes/No - Business rates:

Yes

Yes/No - Split sites:

Yes

Yes/No - Private finance initiative:

Yes

Yes/No - Other exceptional circumstances:

Yes

further comments: See comments on exceptional circumstances.

Building block C: growth

14 Do you agree that we should include a growth factor?

Yes

15 Do you agree that we should allocate funding for growth to local authorities in 2017-18 and 2018-19 based on historic spend?

No

further comments: Each year the LA has to justify the amount being top sliced from the DSG and this is considered by the Schools Forum - and experience has shown that the LA errs on the side of caution, which is understandable but can deprive schools of funding. As the consultation document acknowledges, distributing historically makes no sense.

The DfE should consider this element of funding outside the formula and is drawn down - by a LA for in-year distribution to schools. The DfE is in a far better position to know what amount is needed nationally for pupil number growth even if they do not know which side of LA boundaries that might actually be.

Building block D: geographic costs

16a Do you agree that we should include an area cost adjustment?

Yes

16b Which methodology for the area cost adjustment do you support?

hybrid methodology

further comments: This should also reflect where there is competition bewteen employers for what is a scarce resource. The STP&C Document sets out a higher rate for inner London teachers which is a good base as a starting point but does not reflect that schools have to compete with each other for quality teachers.

With “academisation” it is likely that academies will set their own rates, as some do now, which means there is no independent valuation of the difference.

Factors not included in the formula

17 Do you agree that we should target support for looked-after children and those who have left care via adoption, special guardianship or a care arrangements order through the pupil premium plus, rather than include a looked-after children factor in the national funding formula?

Yes

18 Do you agree that we should not include a factor for mobility?

Yes

further comments: Although a factor that allocates a minor element of funding - the changing of schools can have a significant impact on a young person's educational needs. In Southwark there is high mobility spread across all of its schools and so using the basic entitlement works. We would have thought that one can identify individual "pupil" characteristics rather than a "school" characteristic by using appropriate indicators in the school census data and unique pupil numbers identifiers.

19 Do you agree that we should remove the post-16 factor from 2017-18?

Yes

further comments: Provided appropriate protection is given through the MFG as it works its way through.

Transition to the reformed funding system

20 Do you agree with our proposal to require local authorities to distribute all of their schools block allocation to schools from 2017-18?

Yes

further comments: The DfE proposal to allow LAs to use previous monies deducted from schools to be allocated to other blocks should be with the consent of the Schools Forum. Often this funding has been taken from the Schools Block based on being needed elsewhere. Then if this did not materialise held as "reserves" by the LA. Often the Schools Forum agreed to a one off movement - therefore if not required, should be returned to schools and at the very least schools should decide.

21 Do you believe that it would be helpful for local areas to have flexibility to set a local minimum funding guarantee?

Yes

further comments: Provided it can be less than the national limit - it was difficult to say yes or no to this question without a more detailed proposal and analysis.

Funding remaining with local authorities

22 Do you agree that we should fund local authorities' ongoing responsibilities as set out in the consultation according to a per-pupil formula?

Yes

further comments: This should be sensitive to the different needs within each LA.

23 Do you agree that we should fund local authorities' ongoing historic commitments based on case-specific information to be collected from local authorities?

No

further comments: Not on its own, the DfE has given permission for LAs to get dispensation to remove monies for other activities from the DSG. Any case specific information needs to be a) evidenced and b) verified with the local Schools Forum.

The education services grant

24 Are there other duties funded from the education services grant that could be removed from the system?

Please provide your comments: This is best answered by the LAs

25 Do you agree with our proposal to allow local authorities to retain some of their maintained schools’ DSG centrally – in agreement with the maintained schools in the schools forum – to fund the duties they carry out for maintained schools?

Yes

further comments: However, this would appear to be academic with the proposed “academisation”. Distinction needs to be made between primary and secondary schools and how special education provision is treated in the High Needs Block.

Equality analysis

26 Please provide any comments on the equality analysis.

None

Southwark Schools Forum May 2016 Item 5b

1